I have a dilemma. I have a very low GPA. 2.78. I went to a State School, and was a first generation student. I graduated in 2005. My low GPA was mainly due to an undiagnosed learning disability.

After being diagnosed, and getting a lot of great work experience, I went on to graduate school (Ivy), and have 2 graduate degrees, (I got in because of my experiences)...one of these was from Harvard. My grad GPA is very high (3.9)

All my practice test scores have been between 177 and 180. I also have a lot of great recommendations (including ones from professors at Harvard who spoke highly of my academic abilities).

I know it will be a total guess, but from those who are experienced in applying, what are my realistic chances of getting into a top 25 school (or even top 50)?

Your grad GPA doesn't count; UG does. With a 2.78 and something high 170s, 176+, you need to ED to Northwestern or Georgetown. Throw one to Cornell too. Those two are your best shots for the T-14. Below that, all the midwestern schools, University of Illinois, Indiana Bloomington, Washington University St. Louis, etc., are your best bets, since they are LSAT whores.

Thanks. I guess my biggest problem is not wanting to go to the mid-west. haha. I know grad GPA won't count, but will they at least look highly on students who go to grad school? Also, what do you all think about Univ. of California schools? Finally, is my best shot to just go anywhere and try to transfer?

go to a school that you would be happy graduating from. Going to school with all intentions of transferring out is a mistake. You cant predict how you are going to do at school. Do some research and cold call the schools if necessary, and apply. The worst case scenario is that you dont get in. Best case- you're in.

Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

M.M. wrote:Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

am688 wrote:Thanks. I guess my biggest problem is not wanting to go to the mid-west. haha. I know grad GPA won't count, but will they at least look highly on students who go to grad school? Also, what do you all think about Univ. of California schools? Finally, is my best shot to just go anywhere and try to transfer?

Your case is a bit too extreme for any real advice here but the super low undergrad GPA probably kills your chances at UCs. Your masters degrees will be considered as weak softs, maybe weak-moderate at best given the circumstances. I'd say apply to as many schools as you can with ED to NU and hope for the best. As for transferring, pretty much everyone who gets into a low ranked school has that plan so don't count on it.

M.M. wrote:Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

Not really. Grad school GPAs are notoriously inflated.

The grading at Harvard was based on a forced curve. So the 3.9 was based on consistently scoring in the top 15% of each class I took. That is the reason why two of my recs are from professors at HKS and one from HBS.

M.M. wrote:Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

Not really. Grad school GPAs are notoriously inflated.

The grading at Harvard was based on a forced curve. So the 3.9 was based on consistently scoring in the top 15% of each class I took. That is the reason why two of my recs are from professors at HKS and one from HBS.

PS...What's "OP"?

OP = original poster

I have to agree with M.M. on this one: with two prestigious graduate degrees (even with grade inflation) and significant work experience, it seems ridiculous that some random applicant with a higher uGPA is given more value in the admissions process. But that's the culture these rankings have created: screw accomplishments and life experiences, we just want numbers.

Also (and I guess a little contrary to my point above), get that ED application to Northwestern filled out and ready to go. They're one of the few (if not the only) schools that will overlook a poor GPA in favor of a high LSAT and significant work experience.

M.M. wrote:Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

Not really. Grad school GPAs are notoriously inflated.

The grading at Harvard was based on a forced curve. So the 3.9 was based on consistently scoring in the top 15% of each class I took. That is the reason why two of my recs are from professors at HKS and one from HBS.

PS...What's "OP"?

OP = original poster

I have to agree with M.M. on this one: with two prestigious graduate degrees (even with grade inflation) and significant work experience, it seems ridiculous that some random applicant with a higher uGPA is given more value in the admissions process. But that's the culture these rankings have created: screw accomplishments and life experiences, we just want numbers.

Also (and I guess a little contrary to my point above), get that ED application to Northwestern filled out and ready to go. They're one of the few (if not the only) schools that will overlook a poor GPA in favor of a high LSAT and significant work experience.

I'm not sure I understand why a 2.83 is different from a 3.4 or 3.5, if we're talking about it specifically in the context of the school's rankings, and specifically the kind of schools you'd be looking at with a 177-180.

The only numbers that count for the school are the median and 25th/75th points. If you're below the 25th, why should it matter to them how far below it you are? You have the same effect on their numbers either way.

You could even take a cynical look at it and say that the school would be well-served by taking several applicants a year with extremely low GPAs (provided that, like the OP here, there is decent evidence that the applicant should be able to do well at law school). That way the school would have more hard evidence to support their claims of taking an holistic approach to admissions, looking beyond the numbers, etc.

OP: Take your LSAT. Apply to any of the T14 who send you a waiver (and you'll get some if you score that high, despite your UGPA). Write a compelling Diversity Statement about your experiences overcoming your learning disability and, more importantly, how that experience will help you to bring a unique perspective to the school. Throw the bait out and see if anyone bites. It can't hurt to try. Like I said, from a rankings standpoint your GPA is no different from a 3.4/3.5 to the top schools, and from a real world, "the GPA indicates his chance of succeeding in law school" perspective, you have ample evidence that in your case, your undergrad GPA is a rather poor indicator. Good luck.

zworykin wrote:OP: Take your LSAT. Apply to any of the T14 who send you a waiver (and you'll get some if you score that high, despite your UGPA). Write a compelling Diversity Statement about your experiences overcoming your learning disability and, more importantly, how that experience will help you to bring a unique perspective to the school. Throw the bait out and see if anyone bites. It can't hurt to try. Like I said, from a rankings standpoint your GPA is no different from a 3.4/3.5 to the top schools, and from a real world, "the GPA indicates his chance of succeeding in law school" perspective, you have ample evidence that in your case, your undergrad GPA is a rather poor indicator. Good luck.

Thanks Zworykin. I'll definitely try. I guess I was originally discouraged by the law school by the numbers website, which consistently has low GPA/180 LSAT applicants that are denied admissions at top schools.

I'm taking the LSAT next week. Other than the LSAT, I have most everything else ready to submit (letter of recs; a few version of a personal statement; diversity statement; and supplemental statement about my low UGPA). So I'm pretty much ready to submit once I get that LSAT score.

zworykin wrote:Like I said, from a rankings standpoint your GPA is no different from a 3.4/3.5 to the top schools

While this may be true, LSN shows that some schools have pretty hard GPA floors, like UT's 3.4, no matter the LSAT. Vanderbilt has a soft 3.2 for stratospheric LSATs, but barely anyone under 3.0 got in.

M.M. wrote:Is anyone else kind of awe stricken that the OP can have a 3.9 at Harvard grad school with 2 graduate degrees despite his undergrad GPA and be valued less than someone who got a 3.5 or so at a mediocre school for an undergrad degree? Every time I see this I get confused ...

The guy got a 2.8 at a mediocre undergrad and still got 3.9 at Harvard grad. Why then do you think the 3.5 at the state should be at disadvantage? Because they didn't waste tens of thousands for a worthless MA?

If I were you I would apply to the entire T14, maybe not Yale, Stanford and Berkeley if you are hard on cash. Definitely apply to Harvard. If you don't get a t14 this year, apply next year ED to Northwestern.

2014 wrote:How did you get into Harvard grad school with a 2.7? I'm just curious...

My GPA, as calculated by my undergraduate institution, was a 3.3. But LSAC uses a different formula for calculating your GPA, and this took it down to 2.78.

Grad schools use the calculation by your previous institution, and a near perfect GRE score, great recs, great work experience, lots of involvements, and research experience, all helped. Nevertheless, after getting the "you're in" letter from Harvard, I thought it was some sort of computer error that they would correct and tell me that I was actually "not in." But this never happened, so I showed up to orientation and then classes.

Desert Fox wrote:If I were you I would apply to the entire T14, maybe not Yale, Stanford and Berkeley if you are hard on cash. Definitely apply to Harvard. If you don't get a t14 this year, apply next year ED to Northwestern.

Thanks. Will definitely try this strategy. I was going to skip Berkeley because I heard that they are completely GPA centric. A little afraid of applying to Harvard--would be heartbreaking to get rejected from there. Especially because I love their law school library. But I may get the courage to apply.

Desert Fox wrote:If I were you I would apply to the entire T14, maybe not Yale, Stanford and Berkeley if you are hard on cash. Definitely apply to Harvard. If you don't get a t14 this year, apply next year ED to Northwestern.

Thanks. Will definitely try this strategy. I was going to skip Berkeley because I heard that they are completely GPA centric. A little afraid of applying to Harvard--would be heartbreaking to get rejected from there. Especially because I love their law school library. But I may get the courage to apply.

They may be the only school to actually give a shit about the MA you got from them, especially if it really is graded on a strict curve, and if you get recommendations from them.

I wouldn't bet on you getting in, but you are an idiot if you don't try.